On Sep 19, 2010, at 3:12 AM, Graham Cobb wrote: > On Saturday 18 September 2010 19:48:04 Skarpness, Mark wrote: >> I don't agree that having MeeGo compliance support componentised >> applications is an objective we should take for the near term. I would >> rather us focus on solving the core problem (self-contained compliant app >> runs on any compliant device). > > I could agree with, and support, that view if you remove the > term "compliance". That is what is causing a lot of the concern and heat on > this topic. There is nothing non-compliant to MeeGo about componentised apps > but there are good, practical, reasons to first solve the "run anywhere" > problem for non-componentised apps. Yes, there is something non-compliant about componentised apps - they're non-compliant :-) As I said earlier in the thread - compliance isn't a statement of worth - it simply means that the app follows the rules of compliance so that it will run on any compliant device. > > So, how about taking the heat out of the argument by replacing the concept > with words that are more neutral. Also recognise that the compliance doc is > essentially technical and any term used should be independent of the > marketing brand used to publicise the concept. No, these go hand in hand. What we define in the compliance spec is the basis for how we brand and market. For example, if the spec allows two classes of compliant apps then the marketing and branding needs to somehow support that... > > Instead of MeeGo Compliant apps create a new term for the compliance document > to describe those apps which are simple (one package) and which only depend > on the MeeGo Core. How about "MeeGo Core Apps"? The name doesn't have to be > perfect because it is a technical definition, not a marketing term. Again we are basically back to two types of "compliant" apps. I strongly believe that is a mistake we cannot afford to make - we need to avoid fragmenting our application ecosystem. > > Then get the Marketing team to decide on how those MeeGo Core Apps will be > branded in the outside world. My suggestion: "MeeGo World -- a world of > apps for all MeeGo devices". The MeeGo 1.1 version of the branding rules > will state that only apps that meet the defintion of "MeeGo Core Apps" can > call themselves "MeeGo World" apps. I want to make the marketing team job really simple - market "MeeGo Compliant Applications" > >> Before we require compliant devices to support apps with external >> dependencies, I think we need to demonstrate that the value of that >> justifies the cost and complexity. For example - show what can be done >> with MeeGo Extras following this model. We can add this to a future >> version of compliance if everyone says "wow, that's great - I really want >> this on my next device" > > Fine, but just delete the concept of "compliance" for apps altogether and > replace it with what we really need -- a simple marketing concept which can > be explained to both vendors and users but which does not imply that there is > something bad about apps which don't meet the criteria. That misses the point of compliance - the simple marketing concept is "MeeGo compliant apps run on all MeeGo compliant devices". There's nothing bad about apps that don't meet the criteria - they just don't come with that promise. > > Graham
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
